TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mann & Hummel Filter Technology (S.E.A) PTE Limited, Singapore. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in air intake systems and filters for the automotive and heavy engineering industry. It provides Engineering Design Services ("EDS") using Computer Aided Design ("CAD") and Computer Aided Manufacturing ("CAM") tools to its Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). In terms of the provisions of Sec.92A of the Act, the Assessee and its wholly owned holding company were AEs. In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing EDS was an "international transaction" i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee and its arithmetic mean are as follows:- SI. No. Name of the company Weighted Average (%) 1. Akshay Software Technologies 6.75 2. Cigniti Technologies Ltd. 8.34 3. I-Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. 14.66 4. Neilsoft Ltd. 5.73 5. Tata Exlsi 8.65 Arithmetical Mean 8.82 5. Out of the 5 comparables selected by the assessee, the TPO accepted the 2 comparables viz., Neilsoft Ltd. and Tata Elxsi, and rejected the others. 6. The comparables selected by the TPO and its arithmetic mean are as under:- SI. No. Name of the Company Mark-up on Total Costs (WC-unadj) (in %) Mark-up on Total Costs (WC-adj) (in %) 1 Acropetal Technologies Ltd. 37.79 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited. [Ground No. 4(a)]. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. The main basis of the conclusions of the CIT(A), vide paragraphs 5.2 & 5.3 of the impugned order, for not interfering with the order of the AO incorporating the adjustment to the ALP which was added to the total income of the Assessee was that the Assessee did not file any objections to the draft order of the AO incorporating the adjustment to the ALP suggested by the TPO. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the assessee not having filed objections against the draft assessment order, it is not entitled to final assessment order before him is wholly erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) the assessee had to approach the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, if the assessee wanted to raise objections against the Assessment Order. However, after the formation of DRP the assessee has an additional option to approach DRP on the basis Draft Order issued by AO, in whose case, there is variation in the income or loss returned which arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed under 92CA(3) or otherwise. In above case, Assessing Officer (AO) in the first instance, forwards a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee before making any final order. On receipt of the direction from DRP U/s 144C(5), the AO will pass an order which is called as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l against the final order of assessment to the CIT(A). The CBDT in Circular bearing No. 9/2013 issued on 19-11-2013, has clarified that Section 144C is applicable to any order which proposed to make variation in income or loss returned by an eligible assessee on or after 01-10-2009, irrespective of the assessment year to which it pertains. In paragraphs 45.1 to 45.4 of Circular No. 5/2010 dated 03-6-2010, CBDT explained the substance of the provisions of Section 144C. It has been made clear by the Circular that an order passed under Section 143(3) or Section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the DRP, is not made appealable under Section 246A(1) to the Commissioner or under Section 253(1) to the Appellate Tribunal. It means a finality wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been exercised, the assessee cannot withdraw the objection and opt for the normal channel of filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals)". The understanding of the CBDT in para 45.4 of Circular No. 5/2010 is that, the availing of the remedy to go before the DRP, would not take away the right of appeal. Therefore, it is clear that an Assessee has the option to avail the alternative mechanism of filing appeal before the CIT(A) against the final order of assessment where there is no objection to the draft order of assessment filed by the Assessee before DRP. 16. We agree with the submission of the assessee that the CIT(Appeals) was not right in holding that since the assessee has not filed objections to the draft assessment order before the D....